-
#140
by
laszlo
on 02 Jun, 2024 20:06
-
]If it's the hundred times and they've ONLY (
?) seen a handful of these... Handful being more than 2 and less than 10?
If a system fails 5% of the time, it's beyond unreliable, it's broken. Would you accept that from your car or your TV? You'd declare it a lemon and ship it back. Why is this much more expensive system any different?
How many years and how many hardware and software updates is that spread over? How many different root causes were found? How many different launch complexes and support crews were involved over those 100 times? How many different launch sequencer implementations were used in those attempts?
If everything was identical for every launch attempt, it's a lemon. If the configuration and crews change constantly throughout the attempts it's just normal.
So can everyone just please stop the constant concern trolling? Yes, we know - you don't like Boeing. But the launch complex is ULA. And if you apply the same standard to Starship it has an even worse record with stage 0. GSE is constantly being replaced. 33% of the launch attempts have resulted in excavating the pad and flinging concrete pieces the size of vans into the ocean. And even the Falcon 9s have delays for GSE and faulty booster components. It's the rocket life.
-
#141
by
zubenelgenubi
on 02 Jun, 2024 20:07
-
[No value post]
Moderator:
If you have nothing of value to say, do not post.
-
#142
by
zubenelgenubi
on 02 Jun, 2024 20:40
-
Moderator:
If a post reads like it was posted in a different thread, it probably was.
Then, it was split/merged to this thread, the correct thread.
-
#143
by
Jim
on 02 Jun, 2024 21:44
-
Does anyone know what kind of computer failed? Like IBM 4 PI, maybe?
Atlas is an old rocket, so it's likely an ancient computer too. I hope it's not something they have to keep alive with parts from Ebay.
wrong. the avionics of the Atlas V and ground system were upgraded a few years ago. It was documented on this website.
You been a member since 2015
-
#144
by
Lee Jay
on 02 Jun, 2024 22:19
-
From the update thread...
Repair is complete (replacement of power chassis).
Let’s hear it for @Lee Jay, properly suggesting this was power-related.
Hey...how about that? That keeps my experience with this sort of thing at 100% power issues.
It's kind of funny. People would call me at Intel and tell me our chips didn't work right. I'd ask them about the power situation and they'd say, "it's hooked up to a power supply. " I'd ask them to scope it out, bring it into spec and call me back if that didn't work. I got a few calls back (not many) but every one was, "hey....that worked."
When you answer 40 calls a week like that, you kind of start seeing the patterns in the issues that people see.
-
#145
by
jimvela
on 03 Jun, 2024 00:13
-
wrong. the avionics of the Atlas V and ground system were upgraded a few years ago. It was documented on this website.
You been a member since 2015
Yes, very true.
I have bought EGSE from the same company that did those launch complex GSE upgrades for ULA.
It's a modern architecture and was a significant improvement over the previous generation.
-
#146
by
SoftwareDude
on 03 Jun, 2024 00:32
-
wrong. the avionics of the Atlas V and ground system were upgraded a few years ago. It was documented on this website.
You been a member since 2015
Yes, very true.
I have bought EGSE from the same company that did those launch complex GSE upgrades for ULA.
It's a modern architecture and was a significant improvement over the previous generation.
Can you tell us the nature of those upgrades?
-
#147
by
Nickolai
on 03 Jun, 2024 01:46
-
Hi all,
I wondering if anyone knows why this is an instantaneous launch window? I thought the Atlas V was capable of RAAN steering?
-
#148
by
DanClemmensen
on 03 Jun, 2024 01:59
-
Hi all,
I wondering if anyone knows why this is an instantaneous launch window? I thought the Atlas V was capable of RAAN steering?
Asked and answered during the press conference, by Tory(?). Because it is crewed, Starliner requires an unusual launch profile that allows a safe abort at every point, and Atlas Centaur does not quite put Starliner into orbit. Starliner does the last little boost to orbit itself. This profile is not compatible with RAAN steering.
-
#149
by
jimvela
on 03 Jun, 2024 02:19
-
-
#150
by
SoftwareDude
on 03 Jun, 2024 02:23
-
-
#151
by
woods170
on 03 Jun, 2024 07:51
-
Does anyone know what kind of computer failed? Like IBM 4 PI, maybe?
Atlas is an old rocket, so it's likely an ancient computer too. I hope it's not something they have to keep alive with parts from Ebay.
wrong. the avionics of the Atlas V and ground system were upgraded a few years ago. It was documented on this website.
You been a member since 2015
Per one of Tory's recent tweets, the current RICs (Remote Interface Controllers) were built new in 2018. So, six years ago already. In computer hardware terms that means they are already middle-aged. This was the first power supply of those "new" RICs to fail by the way. Which is pretty darn good after six years. I've worked in and around a data center for over 15 years. We've had power supply units going bust after as little as six months. Others never failed during their full 12-years of active duty.
-
#152
by
john smith 19
on 03 Jun, 2024 10:10
-
Hey...how about that? That keeps my experience with this sort of thing at 100% power issues.
It's kind of funny. People would call me at Intel and tell me our chips didn't work right. I'd ask them about the power situation and they'd say, "it's hooked up to a power supply. " I'd ask them to scope it out, bring it into spec and call me back if that didn't work. I got a few calls back (not many) but every one was, "hey....that worked."
When you answer 40 calls a week like that, you kind of start seeing the patterns in the issues that people see.
I took a wander through the NASA Lessons Learned database a while back. Power supplies were
the number 1 issue.
Just people screwing up over and over again. Wrong polarity, wrong voltage etc. It
could (loosely) be argued the Apollo 13 tank explosion was also a power supply fail.
One of the reasons why when LSI built disk arrays they supplied 2 PSU's and 2 power cords. It seems such a little thing but.....
-
#153
by
john smith 19
on 03 Jun, 2024 10:18
-
If they go out and start replacing circuit cards, discover that "everything works fine now" but don't understand that the underlying reason for the issue is the power situation, it can lead it an unreliable system. For example, maybe the reason "everything works fine now" is because one card is slightly more tolerant of out-of-spec power supply voltages than another, but that doesn't mean the power supply is in-spec. It just makes the system marginal. A slight change in the EMI state (say, from fluids flowing nearby, the atmospheric electric potential or even the current power grid voltage) can change the behavior of the system. You don't want that, you want it to always work regardless of these other things.
If I were them, I'd go out there and test the system with an o-scope hooked up to the power supply rails of the cards in question and record a trace of what the power supply looks like while the cards are coming up. Of course, I don't know the system so I'm only stating my past experience with this sort of failure. Computers don't just "come up slow". Given the right supply of power, they will come up within a window of microseconds or tens of microseconds every time. I've tested this on many types of systems.
Yes. Intermittent faults
should be treated as a red flag. "We swapped some cards out and it started working again" is a synonym for "We got lucky."
This time.
Next time?
-
#154
by
litton4
on 03 Jun, 2024 11:39
-
Faults can be weird, and yes it is important to understand the root causes.
Back in the day, I worked on Mainframe computers and we put in a new software system (well a virtual machine running VSE, to be precise), started it up and the whole system crashed instantly. Repeated the attempt and and it failed again in exactly the same way.
Channel check accessing a particular disk, prompting a full machine check.
Tested the disk thoroughly, no issues. It had been running 24/7 on another system with no problems.
Eventually, got a full dump and discovered that the last I/O operation was a read of 6 bytes from the disk.
Something the new system, but no other one did.
Switched the operation to another channel, after having the fault on a different disk on the same channel (so not the disk), worked perfectly.
Eventually the HW engineers spent 3 hours single stepping the hardware channel after we triggered the error and traced it to a faulty cable in amongst about 300 other cables that connected various parts of the system.
And yes, power supply faults are very common, too, unlike the above - a few years back a common problem in consumer electronics PSUs was caused by using cheap electrolytics which would blow after a random time. You could spot the dead ones as they usually bulged.
I lose count of the number of times I'd re-soldered in decent quality replacements to fix otherwise dead items.
There were businesses that made tons of money from supplying the kits to replace them, as well as supplying monitors that would alert about impending failures, as the faulty caps could often cause variations in supply before they ultimately failed.
Useful, since, depending on the failure mode, you could get a massive overvoltage that would damage the equipment, too.
-
#155
by
meekGee
on 03 Jun, 2024 12:23
-
]If it's the hundred times and they've ONLY (?) seen a handful of these... Handful being more than 2 and less than 10?
If a system fails 5% of the time, it's beyond unreliable, it's broken. Would you accept that from your car or your TV? You'd declare it a lemon and ship it back. Why is this much more expensive system any different?
How many years and how many hardware and software updates is that spread over? How many different root causes were found? How many different launch complexes and support crews were involved over those 100 times? How many different launch sequencer implementations were used in those attempts?
If everything was identical for every launch attempt, it's a lemon. If the configuration and crews change constantly throughout the attempts it's just normal.
So can everyone just please stop the constant concern trolling? Yes, we know - you don't like Boeing. But the launch complex is ULA. And if you apply the same standard to Starship it has an even worse record with stage 0. GSE is constantly being replaced. 33% of the launch attempts have resulted in excavating the pad and flinging concrete pieces the size of vans into the ocean. And even the Falcon 9s have delays for GSE and faulty booster components. It's the rocket life.
How is the competitor launching a more complex rocket from multiple pads at 100/yr with so much less drama?
You're making it sound like these issues are inevitable.
-
#156
by
mn
on 03 Jun, 2024 14:01
-
]If it's the hundred times and they've ONLY (?) seen a handful of these... Handful being more than 2 and less than 10?
If a system fails 5% of the time, it's beyond unreliable, it's broken. Would you accept that from your car or your TV? You'd declare it a lemon and ship it back. Why is this much more expensive system any different?
How many years and how many hardware and software updates is that spread over? How many different root causes were found? How many different launch complexes and support crews were involved over those 100 times? How many different launch sequencer implementations were used in those attempts?
If everything was identical for every launch attempt, it's a lemon. If the configuration and crews change constantly throughout the attempts it's just normal.
So can everyone just please stop the constant concern trolling? Yes, we know - you don't like Boeing. But the launch complex is ULA. And if you apply the same standard to Starship it has an even worse record with stage 0. GSE is constantly being replaced. 33% of the launch attempts have resulted in excavating the pad and flinging concrete pieces the size of vans into the ocean. And even the Falcon 9s have delays for GSE and faulty booster components. It's the rocket life.
How is the competitor launching a more complex rocket from multiple pads at 100/yr with so much less drama?
You're making it sound like these issues are inevitable.
When you launch only a few times per year, these occasional hiccups will not change your annual total and therefore the incentive to nail down every potential hiccup is not as strong (and management thinks, rightly or wrongly, that it's not worth the cost).
-
#157
by
Nomadd
on 03 Jun, 2024 14:10
-
Yes. Intermittent faults should be treated as a red flag. "We swapped some cards out and it started working again" is a synonym for "We got lucky."
This time.
Next time?
I spent many years working with hacks who thought messing around until it started working and declaring it fixed without never knowing why it quit in the first place was a reasonable procedure. Things like chattering valves should have been fixed right the first time it happened. Things like voltage glitches during switchovers are so basic an issue since electricity was invented they never should have been a problem.
It's as common as it is stupid. The time it took to find a fuel level sensor intermittent on the Shuttle comes to mind.
-
#158
by
dglow
on 03 Jun, 2024 14:46
-
The drama is being provided by the Boeing/Starliner haters who are getting bent out of shape over a GSE swapout and the lack of fiber in the astronauts' diet.
Let it go. Let's elevate the conversation here.
-
#159
by
Chris Bergin
on 03 Jun, 2024 18:02
-
A couple of things. This is a discussion thread. The bad posts are from a few people who seem shocked this isn't some fluffy group hug. This is serious business and people have varying matters of opinion. The moderators do not read every post before they are published here, despite some people thinking we do. It also does not serve the discussion to waste people's time complaining the thread is not bending to your personal opinion.
This discussion is infinitely better than we've seen on social media. If there is a breach of rules post here, report it to mod and a mod will deal with it as required and that does not always mean they will agree with the report to mod report.
?) seen a handful of these... Handful being more than 2 and less than 10?